Appeal No. 96-1419
Application 08/081,971
Other problems noted in appealed claims 8 and 9 are discussed
infra in our new ground of rejection introduced under 37 CFR
§ 1.196(b).
A copy of the appealed claims, as these claims appear in the
appendix to appellants’ brief, is appended to this decision.
The following references are relied upon by the examiner as
evidence of anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and obviousness
under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Schuplin 3,802,655 Apr. 09, 1974
Seckerson, deceased et al. 3,807,675 Apr. 30, 1974
(Seckerson)
Schmidt et al. 4,500,063 Feb. 19, 1985
(Schmidt)
Williams et al. 4,518,191 May 21, 1985
(Williams)
Claims 1 through 7 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Schuplin, claim 8 stands
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt
in view of Schuplin and further in view of Seckerson or Williams,
claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpaten-
table over Schuplin in view of Seckerson or Williams, and claim
12 additionally stands rejected as being indefinite under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
With regard to the rejection of claim 12 under the second
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007